Some quick questions about the "proletarian state"

[Let's Get Free]

Since a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system, why would there still be a class system after a socialist revolution? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this "withering away" happens?

[Q]

Good questions. The long and short of it is that it is illusory to think that class society will simply disappear overnight. Thus, under socialism, also known as the lower stage of communism, expressed via the political hegemony of the working class (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), there will still exist a class society. However, it is a dieing class society where, after the collapse of the "big" bourgeoisie, there will remain still layers of petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata for some time. These parts can only be assimilated into the proletariat part by part. Once completed, the proletariat remains as the only class and therefore negates itself and society becomes one of free producers, also known as the higher stage of communism (or simply "communism" as opposed to "socialism").

This is nutshelling the issue, I'll refer to this article for a further indepth treatise and to my blogpost here regarding the fight for democracy and the negation of democracy.

[helot]

Good questions. The long and short of it is that it is illusory to think that class society will simply disappear overnight. Thus, under socialism, also known as the lower stage of communism, expressed via the political hegemony of the working class (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), there will still exist a class society. However, it is a dieing class society where, after the collapse of the "big" bourgeoisie, there will remain still layers of petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata for some time. These parts can only be assimilated into the proletariat part by part. Once completed, the proletariat remains as the only class and therefore negates itself and society becomes one of free producers, also known as the higher stage of communism (or simply "communism" as opposed to "socialism").

This is nutshelling the issue, I'll refer to this article for a further indepth treatise and to my blogpost here regarding the fight for democracy and the negation of democracy.

I got a different impression about the lower stage of communism from Blake's Baby specifically that the lower stage of communism as opposed to the DotP would be classless although with general scarcity. Maybe i misinterpretted, Blake's quote is as follows...

Three stages, basically.

DotP = a class society, in which the working class has assumed political power in the state; but as this is not yet a situation where capitalism has been overthrown worldwide, it corresponds to the world civil war, when both revolutionary and reactionary territories exist and the world revolution has not yet been completed. This, I and many others would argue, must mean that the DotP must be overseeing a truncated form of capitalism (because it's a society with a class system, property laws and states).

Lower stage of communism = a stage when capitalism has been defeated throughout the world, but society is not yet capable of producing unlimited goods to fulfill all needs; in this stage there must be some sort of rationaing in place; some people think it should be rationing by price, some rationing by work, some - like me - rationing by need. We don't really agree about that point.

Higher stage of communism = the stage when production for need really is a reality and there are no shortages, no rationing, and we can all live free and productive lives.

[Q]

I got a different impression about the lower stage of communism from Blake's Baby specifically that the lower stage of communism as opposed to the DotP would be classless although with general scarcity. Maybe i misinterpretted, Blake's quote is as follows...

That is an old quarrel on definition. I for one don't see a separate stage between DotP and socialism. "DotP" exactly expresses a political hegemony or, in other words, which class rules. In the same terms we are currently living under the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" and this does not form something separate from our social mode of production.

The DotP ushers in communism as a mode of production and as long as this political hegemony lasts (and therefore as long as class society hasn't died out yet) we are still in the lower phase of communism where we still deal with the "birthmarks of capitalism" to refer a well known quote in the Critique on the Gotha programme.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Good questions. The long and short of it is that it is illusory to think that class society will simply disappear overnight. Thus, under socialism, also known as the lower stage of communism, expressed via the political hegemony of the working class (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), there will still exist a class society. However, it is a dieing class society where, after the collapse of the "big" bourgeoisie, there will remain still layers of petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata for some time. These parts can only be assimilated into the proletariat part by part. Once completed, the proletariat remains as the only class and therefore negates itself and society becomes one of free producers, also known as the higher stage of communism (or simply "communism" as opposed to "socialism").

This is nutshelling the issue, I'll refer to this article for a further indepth treatise and to my blogpost here regarding the fight for democracy and the negation of democracy.

Very good formulation Comrade.

[MarxSchmarx]

Good questions. The long and short of it is that it is illusory to think that class society will simply disappear overnight. Thus, under socialism, also known as the lower stage of communism, expressed via the political hegemony of the working class (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), there will still exist a class society. However, it is a dieing class society where, after the collapse of the "big" bourgeoisie, there will remain still layers of petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata for some time. These parts can only be assimilated into the proletariat part by part. Once completed, the proletariat remains as the only class and therefore negates itself and society becomes one of free producers, also known as the higher stage of communism (or simply "communism" as opposed to "socialism").

This is nutshelling the issue, I'll refer to this article for a further indepth treatise and to my blogpost here regarding the fight for democracy and the negation of democracy.

To some extent it is a matter of definition, but what do you make of the opinion that a lot of those remnants can actually be dismantled or at least superseded under capitalism, particularly in its dying stage?

The destructive power that wrecks at the old order is inherent in capitalism. It therefore requires a specifically capitalist mode of production as a prerequisite for building a shell of the new order.

I suspect that by the time capitalism self-destructs, the state and its previous class system would be so thoroughly decimated they would be mere caricatures of their predecessors. Some relicts of the ruling class may exist, sure, the way the house of lords in England does. But as a potent social force, it seems the economic/materially based class structured devised by capitalism can no more be expected to outlive capitalism than the feudal structure realistically outlived feudalism.

[Ostrinski]

Look, if you don't want to call it a state then don't call it a state. This is just auxiliary to a broader crisis in the language we use in our political dialogues on the revolutionary left.

This is what cannot be denied. The bourgeoisie developed the foundations of their hegemony from within feudal society. That is, when the landed aristocracy and gentry had control of the political apparatus usually in the form of a monarchy. They maintained that political control long after their economy began decaying. The capitalist class developed within this arrangement with the rise of more concentrated living spaces, the development of the factory system, industry, etc. At the end they ended up with all the wealth as they had better means of accumulating it than the aristocrats, so all they had to do was knock off the political shell, to dispose of the carcass of the old society.

The proletariat does not have this luxury. The only way they can possibly overturn and subsequently quash their class adversary is by political means. In other words, just the opposite. Whereas the bourgeoisie completed their revolution by replacing the monarchy with the republic after developing their economic hegemony within the old system, the proletariat must begin with the political conquest of state power because they don't exploit others in order to accumulate wealth like the bourgeoisie. Therefore they cannot build the foundations of the new society within this one.

The systematic liquidation of the bourgeoisie and the management of the last, decaying wretched vestiges of the capitalist society (the chicken without its head, if you will) is the only task of the workers while in the driver's seat of this revolutionary government.

This is why I like to say that the proletarian state is only a semi state (pretty sure I got the term from Q) and doesn't resemble a conventional state in any meaningful sense.

From a post I made in another thread:

The "state" that the proletariat creates upon the political overthrow of the bourgeoisie is only a semi state and in fact does not need to resemble at all what we conventionally know a state as. The reason for this is that the proletariat does not need the state outside of the context of the threat of a class-alien counter revolution.

So the state only exists only in relation to the preconditions for its existence. A quality revolutionary movement can deal with these threats easily, however, and if they can't then that is either indicative of a weak revolutionary movement or geo-political conditions that can't be helped (isolation).

The problem is that many of our Marxist-Leninist comrades confuse the nature of the proletariat's state with that of the bourgeoisie's. This fetishism with police state measures, political repression, arbitrary state violence, etc. demonstrates that well. You need to realize that the only thing that gives legitimacy to these kinds of measures is the need to defend a minority from massive political upheaval.

It's common sense really. A healthy revolutionary movement encompasses and incorporates the majority of society into itself. Why do the majority of people need to use such excessive policies and measures against a minority of the population? We've already established that the workers are in the saddle and in control of the state. What the fuck can the bourgeoisie do in a situation like that? Fight back? Wasn't it Lenin that said "Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps."? Nah, they're not gonna run up on the assemblies with guns, they'd be too frightened to use them.

So you really only need this type of shit if the revolutionary government isn't actively run by the workers themselves, not just if the government lacks popular support. In which case? The sooner this failed regime is brought down the better. Why would a government run by the workers need to repress itself? All you need to do is follow things logically through to conclusion to overcome this fanaticism with authoritarianism.

Oh, and the whole strongman aesthetic. If what you want is a strongman then I suggest you give up socialist politics because socialism is a liberatory movement that empowers society rather than subjugates it to its will. The workers have no use for a strongman and they don't have any use for anyone who wants one. And if you think the workers need a strongman, then why are you a socialist? You've already decided that workers can't think and rule for themselves in a collective and democratic manner, so why not just pursue some other ideology that calls for a strongman? You'd save yourself some time

[ind_com]

Since a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system, why would there still be a class system after a socialist revolution? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this "withering away" happens?

At least the state that follows immediately after the revolution, does not whither away automatically. If the proletariat stops continuing the revolution and weakening the social hierarchy, it gradually becomes a new capitalist dictatorship over the workers.

[Art Vandelay]

Since a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system, why would there still be a class system after a socialist revolution? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this "withering away" happens?

Some great responses here but just wanted to add this:

A state is a by product of class society, ie: the institution through which the ruling class exerts it's hegemony. Where anarchists go wrong, is that they wish to abolish the state, before the material conditions arise which make the state obsolete. Given that there will still be remnants of the bourgeoisie post revolution, the need and necessity for the state exists (dotp). Once society has entered into a stage of free producers (communism) the state will whither away, since the material conditions (class society) that necessitate a state are gone.

[l'Enfermé]

Class rule by the proletariat will have to be maintained for a few generations at least after a successful proletarian revolution. The working class does not exceed more than 35-40 percent of the world's population, and even that estimate is quite generous I think. All these people who are alien to the working class won't just disappear through some witchcraft all of the sudden. It will take some years to break and assimilate these classes, unless you suggest we just mow them down with machine guns but that sounds like quite a distasteful business to say the least. Working class hegemony has to be preserved and the only organ capable of preserving it is the Proletarian State.

[Let's Get Free]

The "state" that the proletariat creates upon the political overthrow of the bourgeoisie is only a semi state and in fact does not need to resemble at all what we conventionally know a state as. The reason for this is that the proletariat does not need the state outside of the context of the threat of a class-alien counter revolution.

So the state only exists only in relation to the preconditions for its existence. A quality revolutionary movement can deal with these threats easily, however, and if they can't then that is either indicative of a weak revolutionary movement or geo-political conditions that can't be helped (isolation).

The problem is that many of our Marxist-Leninist comrades confuse the nature of the proletariat's state with that of the bourgeoisie's. This fetishism with police state measures, political repression, arbitrary state violence, etc. demonstrates that well. You need to realize that the only thing that gives legitimacy to these kinds of measures is the need to defend a minority from massive political upheaval.

It's common sense really. A healthy revolutionary movement encompasses and incorporates the majority of society into itself. Why do the majority of people need to use such excessive policies and measures against a minority of the population? We've already established that the workers are in the saddle and in control of the state. What the fuck can the bourgeoisie do in a situation like that? Fight back? Wasn't it Lenin that said "Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps."? Nah, they're not gonna run up on the assemblies with guns, they'd be too frightened to use them.

So you really only need this type of shit if the revolutionary government isn't actively run by the workers themselves, not just if the government lacks popular support. In which case? The sooner this failed regime is brought down the better. Why would a government run by the workers need to repress itself? All you need to do is follow things logically through to conclusion to overcome this fanaticism with authoritarianism.

Oh, and the whole strongman aesthetic. If what you want is a strongman then I suggest you give up socialist politics because socialism is a liberatory movement that empowers society rather than subjugates it to its will. The workers have no use for a strongman and they don't have any use for anyone who wants one. And if you think the workers need a strongman, then why are you a socialist? You've already decided that workers can't think and rule for themselves in a collective and democratic manner, so why not just pursue some other ideology that calls for a strongman? You'd save yourself some time

Not an unreasonable position to take at all. But we should realize that Marx never advocated a party dictatorship ruling on the "behalf" of the proletariat. In lower-stage communism/socialism, the state loses it's political functions and becomes an economic coordination mechanism". A state that loses its political function as instrument of class rule is no longer a state and in communism there are no classes and therefore there can be no state in Marxian terms.

[Let's Get Free]

Class rule by the proletariat will have to be maintained for a few generations at least after a successful proletarian revolution. The working class does not exceed more than 35-40 percent of the world's population, and even that estimate is quite generous I think. All these people who are alien to the working class won't just disappear through some witchcraft all of the sudden. It will take some years to break and assimilate these classes, unless you suggest we just mow them down with machine guns but that sounds like quite a distasteful business to say the least. Working class hegemony has to be preserved and the only organ capable of preserving it is the Proletarian State.

Actually, logically speaking, the only way you can introduce communism is immediately, when you think about it. That is why the Communist Manifesto itself talks of communism being the most radical rupture with traditional property relations. You can't have something in between a money based economy and wage-labor and a non money based economy and abolished wage-labor. It's one or the other. Its like being pregnant or not. You cant be a "little pregnant". What about this- instead of advocating a transitional period with the so called proletarian state AFTER the capture of political power - which is logically indefensible - think of the transition as something that happens BEFORE this event.

Every society is in a process of transition. By postponing this mythical notion of a "transition" to some distant, far off period in time, we subconsciously disempower ourselves in the here and now and disengage from the whole business of changing society right now. We are already in the transition period and we need to wake up and do something about it.

[Ostrinski]

Not an unreasonable position to take at all. But we should realize that Marx never advocated a party dictatorship ruling on the "behalf" of the proletariat. In lower-stage communism/socialism, the state loses it's political functions and becomes an economic coordination mechanism". A state that loses its political function as instrument of class rule is no longer a state and in communism there are no classes and therefore there can be no state in Marxian terms.

A common misconception is that single party rule translates into buraucratic management of political and economic affairs. While it's true that unfortunately some argue for this arrangement, it couldn't be further from the truth for others of us.

The goal is to facilitate and encourage debate, discussion, and democratic management while at the same time effectively maintaining organizational unity. That has always been the great struggle.

Marx never said much at all on programmatic matters, and was definitely lacking in that area. Critique of the Gotha Program is probably the closest he got to delving into political matters, and it is a very general work. Therefore it was the task of the Second International to tackle these questions, and in fact they did though with flaws.

[ed miliband]

Actually, logically speaking, the only way you can introduce communism is immediately, when you think about it. That is why the Communist Manifesto itself talks of communism being the most radical rupture with traditional property relations. You can't have something in between a money based economy and wage-labor and a non money based economy and abolished wage-labor. It's one or the other. Its like being pregnant or not. You cant be a "little pregnant". What about this- instead of advocating a transitional period with the so called proletarian state AFTER the capture of political power - which is logically indefensible - think of the transition as something that happens BEFORE this event.

Every society is in a process of transition. By postponing this mythical notion of a "transition" to some distant, far off period in time, we subconsciously disempower ourselves in the here and now and disengage from the whole business of changing society right now. We are already in the transition period and we need to wake up and do something about it.

agreed. i recommend reading about communisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communization

[Ostrinski]

Actually, logically speaking, the only way you can introduce communism is immediately, when you think about it. That is why the Communist Manifesto itself talks of communism being the most radical rupture with traditional property relations. You can't have something in between a money based economy and wage-labor and a non money based economy and abolished wage-labor. It's one or the other. Its like being pregnant or not. You cant be a "little pregnant". What about this- instead of advocating a transitional period with the so called proletarian state AFTER the capture of political power - which is logically indefensible - think of the transition as something that happens BEFORE this event.

This is correct. That is why I made the "chicken without its head" comment with regard to the management of the revolutionary government. The capitalist mode of production still exists in the dictatorship of the proletariat (I know I'm disagreeing with Q here as I'm taking the more left communist position of distinction between socialism and the dotp). Money still exists as a means of exchange, as Marx points out in Critique of the Gotha Program (i.e. from each according to their ability to each according to their contribution).

As socialism can only exist on a global level (I don't think it's useful to make a distinction between socialism and communism), the workers of a particular liberated region will still have to manage affairs to the best of their abilities.

[l'Enfermé]

That's fine and dandy if you're an anarchist, comrade, but if you make claims to being a Marxist you have to approach the question from a scientific perspective, because no amount of wishful thinking will create the possibility of introducing communism immediately after the conquest of political power by the proletariat, given the fact that the proletariat makes up no more than 40 percent of the world's population, and probably much less, and this situation can't be rectified in a short period of time. As long as more than one class exists, that is, as long as class-society exists, the political State can't be done away with, you can't just wave your hands at it and have it disappear. A conquest of political power by the proletariat will of course lead to the demise of the bourgeoisie almost immediately, but the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are not the only classes around. Of the remaining classes, most can be dealt with without much difficulty(the petty-bourgeoisie, the lumpenproletariat, etc), aye, but what of the peasantry? A classless society("communism") is not possible if 2 social classes, the proletarians and the peasants, exist, and both have billions of members.

Anyways, Marx and Engels DID "think of it"(think of "introducing communism immediately" that is), and their conclusion was no, you can't introduce communism immediately. In the Manifesto, their idea is that the Proletariat must form itself into a class(i.e class for itself, not class in itself), seize political power, wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie, and increase the total productive forces as "rapidly as possible". Eventually, class distinctions will disappear(i.e every class will assimilate into the working class) and "public power" will lose it's political character. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx writes "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat".

Etc, etc.

[Q]

Just to chime in: I have to say I'm caught somewhere in between The Insurrectionist's and l'Enfermé's positions. Without getting myself entangled in quote mining of Marx and Engels, I'm reasonably sure their point was that the proletariat first had to conquer political power, before it could impose definite forms on society in going from the law of value towards the law of planning for human need.

While it is true that this will take time (l'Enfermé's point), I'm more optimistic in that I don't think it'll take "several generations". On the other hand, I agree with The Insurrectionist where he mentions that we'll immediately enter this revolutionary transformation, which is what I earlier referred to as the lower stage of communism.

Only when the law of value has become superseeded, and the law of planning for human need has become universal, can we talk of the higher phase of communism.

[Caj]

This is why I like to say that the proletarian state is only a semi state (pretty sure I got the term from Q)

The term actually originated with Engels.

[Blake's Baby]

I got a different impression about the lower stage of communism from Blake's Baby specifically that the lower stage of communism as opposed to the DotP would be classless although with general scarcity. Maybe i misinterpretted, Blake's quote is as follows...

(what I said about DotP, lower stage of communism, higher stage of communism)

You didn't misinterpret me at all, as far as I can see you understood me perfectly. But, I'm afraid I have to disagree with Q that this is all a question of definition - we don't just use different words for the same things, it's also a difference in conception of what is being discussed I think.

Socialism is a classless communal society. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a classless society, in that it has 1-a proletariat, and 2-other classes over which the proletariat is excercising its political dominance. Therefore, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not the same as socialism (in its lower or higher form). "...do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" - Engels' 1891 postscript to 'The Civil War in France': Marx to Domela Nieuwenhuis 1881 - "...apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be..."

So, from the mouths of the pair of horses themselves, the DotP is not socialist. Only Leninists ('Marxist-Leninists' ie Stalinists, and 'Bolshevik-Leninists' ie Trotskyists) think it is, because Lenin mixed up his categories. Other varieties of Marxists disagree with his re-definitions, because we're Marxists (and Marxians) not Leninists.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat must co-exist with capitalism - it must begin in one place when the revolution has successfully wrested political power from the capitalists, but has not yet extended itself to cover the globe. We can legitimately talk, I think, about 'the DotP in Belgium' or 'the DotP in Canada' or whatever. Historically I think it's permissable to talk - briefly - about the DotP in Russia, as well as Hungary and parts Germany, and of course the Paris Commune. But while capitalism exists, classes exist and property exists, therefore there is no situation of classlessness and the end of property.

Against l'Enferme's insane idea that the DotP will last 'several generations' I'd argue that it is impossible it to last more than a few years. It's not a stable formation. Without the rapid extension of the revolution (ie, the successful prosection of the world civil war AKA world revolution) the revolutionary territories must necessarily stagnate and go backwards and become reactionary (as happened in Russia within a few years). There is no other option.

A revolutionary territory that is cut off from fresh revolutionary conquests is surrounded by hostile capitalist powers; to survive it must miltarise its economy and compete with the capitalists in their own game. That's isn't any form of socialism, it's the blackest most brutal form of state-capitalism. The working class can't administer the state as a capitalist formation; thus a new class inevitably arises based on the state, property etc - all the shit we were trying to get rid of.

As, however, l'Enferme's conception of the relationship of party and class is that the party rules the class, this isn't a problem for him; but his 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is after all just a bureacratic or technocratic capitalist 'dictatorship over the proletariat' and really, I don't see why we should even bother with a revolution.

[Bakunin Knight]

The institution of the state, however, is itself a corrupting force, and creates incentives to transform the new rulers into exploiters, i.e. it creates a new system of class domination. As Bakunin argued, the authoritarianism of the dictatorship of the proletariat is counter-productive and does not lead to the liberty so desired. Of course, I admit that I am not a Marxist.